Projecting Sample Misstatements to Audit Populations: Theoretical, Professional, and Empirical Considerations

ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a strin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Decision sciences 1997-04, Vol.28 (2), p.261-278
Main Authors: Wheeler, Stephen, Dusenbury, Richard, Reimers, Jane
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accounting
Accounting/Auditing and Statistics
Auditing standards
Auditors
Bias
Errors
Estimates
Estimation bias
Expected values
Hypotheses
Judgments
Mean square errors
Sampling techniques
SAS 39
Statements on auditing standards
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:ABSTRACT This paper examines the auditing decision to isolate or project errors found in sampling an audit population. The topic is interesting from both practical and theoretical viewpoints because prior research suggests that theory and practice are juxtaposed. Prior research has suggested a stringent theoretical norm in which few errors should be isolated and also suggests that, in practice, auditors commonly isolate errors that they perceive to be confined to a well‐defined subpopulation. We extend this research by using the professional auditing standards as a backdrop for the study of both theoretical and practical aspects of the projection‐isolation decision. As to theory, we show that a biased estimator (i.e., one that excludes errors known not to recur) may be more precise than an unbiased estimator under certain assumptions about sample sizes and the frequencies of errors in accounting populations. Using simulation, we specify conditions under which a biased estimator is more precise than an unbiased one. As to practice, we show that auditors rely on containment information when choosing to project, and we use verbal reports to develop a description of auditors' strategies for using containment information. Considering both the theoretical and practical aspects in light of professional standards, we conclude that, under specific conditions, isolation of sample misstatements is appropriate. Further investigation of the topic appears warranted.
ISSN:0011-7315
1540-5915
DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01311.x